Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Julian J. Bunn

Publications and source records attributed to Julian J. Bunn.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Refinements to the attenuated propagation of local earthquake shaking (APPLES) ground-motion-based earthquake early warning algorithm

We refined the Attenuated ProPagation of Local Earthquake Shaking (APPLES) ground-motion-based earthquake early warning (EEW) approach, and directly compare APPLES performance with that of the source-characterization-based U.S. ShakeAlert EEW system for a suite of historical earthquakes in the U.S. West Coast and Japan. APPLES is an extension of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) algorithm in which observed shaking intensity at seismic stations is used to forward-predict intensity distributions to surrounding areas using an attenuation model derived from an intensity prediction equation. We test new configuration options within APPLES, such as using the second highest estimated ground motion rather than the maximum, to better match median ground-motion observations and reduce alerts for small magnitude earthquakes, both of which are key alerting priorities within ShakeAlert. We evaluate these configurations alongside ShakeAlert by comparing the ground-motion estimation accuracy and available warning times relative to station observations and ShakeMap distributions. Our preferred APPLES configuration produces accurate ground-motion estimates and corresponds better with median observations compared to ShakeAlert’s estimates. This preferred configuration substantially reduces alert issuance for M < 5.0 earthquakes compared to the previous APPLES configuration, and alert-release criteria can further restrict alerts to primarily M ≥ 5.5 earthquakes without requiring magnitude estimation. Prioritizing matching median-observed ground motions may reduce APPLES warning times compared to configurations that were tuned to avoid missed alerts (such as those that use the maximum estimated ground motions), which can lead to shorter warning times compared to ShakeAlert for the same alert threshold. However, station-based warning time assessments demonstrate that APPLES can outperform ShakeAlert for high target thresholds. APPLES is a simple, independent EEW approach that may improve the robustness of EEW for the West Coast of the U.S.

California, Oregon, Washington

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America